I would say they've come to the right conclusion. Simply because something has been pirated, does not mean the pirate would have shelled out the money for a legitimate copy had the pirating option not been available. It's the same argument cable television companies use, not recognizing that many of the people who steal their service simply could not afford to pay for it if stealing were not an option.

February 2nd, 2009, 10:02 AM

oofki

I was happy to hear this the other day from someone at work. Chances are that if 17,000 people pirate something at least one of them will buy something from that artist - if not now, then in the future. Smart ruling I must say, someone finally thinking out of the box. BUT the judge also said that it still is piracy or something to that effect, I think he wanted to make it clear that he is not saying that is legal while still saying you do not lose money on each copy.

February 7th, 2009, 05:17 AM

keezel

Finally a ruling that makes sense. Two thumbs up for that guy. Yes, it is illegal. No, it did not necessarily cost you hundreds of millions of dollars. Now STFU and go enjoy the millions you already had and quit whining.